Informe provisional - Informe núm. 195, Junio 1979

COMPLAINT CONCERNING THE OBSERVANCE BY URUGUAY OF THE FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO ORGANISE CONVENTION, 1948 (No. 87), AND THE RIGHT TO ORGANISE AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONVENTION, 1949 (No. 98), PRESENTED BY A NUMBER OF DELEGATES TO THE 61st SESSION OF THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE (1976) UNDER ARTICLE 26 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ILO

• COMPLAINT CONCERNING THE OBSERVANCE BY URUGUAY OF THE FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO ORGANISE CONVENTION, 1948 (No. 87), AND THE RIGHT TO ORGANISE AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONVENTION, 1949 (No. 98), PRESENTED BY A NUMBER OF DELEGATES TO THE 61st SESSION OF THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE (1976) UNDER ARTICLE 26 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ILO
  5. 5 A number of trade union organisations, including the WCL and the WFTU, have presented allegations of violations of freedom of association in Uruguay. In addition, three delegates to the 61st Session of the International Labour Conference (June 1976) presented a complaint under article 26 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation to the effect that the Government of Uruguay was not securing the effective observance of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). Both of these instruments have been ratified by Uruguay.
  6. 6 The Committee has examined the entire affair on several occasions, in addition, a representative of the Director-General has carried out two direct contacts missions to the country (June July 1975 and April 1977). The Committee also heard, at its sittings on 25 and 26 May 1978, representatives of the complainant organisations (WCL and WFTU) and a representative of the minister of Labour of Uruguay. Its most recent interim conclusions were presented in its 191st Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 209th Session (February-March 1979).
  7. 7 Shortly before and after the most recent examination of the case, the following further communications were received from trade union organisations: a letter of 12 February 1979 from the Trade Unions International of Workers in the Metal Industry, and a letter of 2 March 1979 from the World Federation of Trade Unions.
  8. 8 The Government sent further information in communications of 6 April and 14 May 1979.

A. Previous examination of the case by the Committee

1. 9. Since 1973 the Committee has had before it complaints relating in part to the general trade union situation in the country. A few months after the dissolution by the Government of a trade union Confederation, the National Workers' Convention (CNT), a Decree (No. 622 of 1 August 1973) was promulgated for the purpose of regulating trade union activities, but had been only partially applied. Although many of the unions had complied with the necessary formalities before the decision to suspend the application of Decree No. 622, which was taken shortly after its adoption, they had been unable to have themselves placed on the national register of trade unions. Despite the suspension of the Decree, the provisions relating to the prohibition of strikes and political activities by the trade unions had been applied. After his second direct contacts mission to Uruguay (April 1977), the representative of the Director-General pointed out that from the legal point of view, it might be said that, except for the promulgation of the Decree respecting the setting up of joint Committees in undertakings, dated 15 February 1977, the situation had remained unchanged and the trade unions had a de facto but not a de jure existence.
2. 10. Nevertheless, as the Committee noted in May 1977, the factual situation had changed: there had been an improvement in that of the trade unions affiliated to the General Confederation of Workers of Uruguay (CGTU), which had been able to perform certain internal activities (meetings, elections, etc.). On the other hand, the unions affiliated to the National Workers' Convention (CNT), which was dissolved by the Government after the change of regime in 1973, appeared to have remained to a large extent inactive: many of their leaders were detained, had left the country or had been dismissed; the premises of a number of these unions were being watched by the police, had been closed, or were under surveillance, etc. As for industrial relations activities, the extent of recognition of the unions of the CGTU and their leaders depended on whether they were on good terms with the employers or the heads of public administrative services. As to the unions affiliated to the CNT, these did not appear to be recognised either in the private or in the public sector.
3. 11. The Government also referred on more than one occasion to the subversive activities with which it had had to deal and which had constituted the reasons for the exceptional measures taken in the trade union and other fields. In this respect the Committee emphasised that there should be no confusion between trade unions' performance of their specific functions, i.e. the defence and promotion of the occupational interests of workers, and the possible ---------- pursuit by certain of their members of other activities having nothing to do with trade union functions. The penal responsibilities which such persons might incur by such acts should in no way result in measures amounting to depriving the unions themselves or their leaders of their means of action.
4. 12. The Government also declared that the normalisation of the trade union situation had to be analysed within the broader framework of the political and institutional normalisation of the country. In this connection, the Committee emphasised that, although respect for freedom of association is closely bound up with respect for civil liberties in general, as was stated by the International Labour Conference in 1970 in the resolution concerning trade union rights and their relation to civil liberties, it was nevertheless important, with this reservation, to distinguish between the recognition of freedom of association and questions relating to a country's political evolution; trade union legislation and the reform of a country's political institutions were two separate matters. The Committee had on different occasions drawn the attention of the Government to the need to adopt and apply legislation in conformity with the principles of freedom of association.
5. 13. In February 1979 the Committee examined the text of a draft Bill on occupational associations which had been communicated to it by the Government it remarked that this text had certain positive features but felt obliged to make observations regarding a number of other provisions which did not appear to be in conformity with certain principles of freedom of association. In bringing these observations to the notice of the Government, the Governing Body, on the recommendation of the Committee, stressed the urgency of Uruguay's adopting and applying legislation based on the principles of freedom of association and requested the Government to bring the draft text fully into line with the freedom of association Conventions ratified by Uruguay. It also requested the Government to supply information on any developments in this area.
6. 14. The Committee was also called upon to examine the cases of numerous detained trade unionists whose names, and in many cases their trade union functions, had been mentioned in the complaints. The Committee noted the information supplied by the Government according to which certain of these persons had never been arrested or had been released. During the direct contacts the Government supplied information giving the impression that the criminal proceedings set in motion were aimed first of all at activities of a political character considered by the Government to endanger security and public order. However, the representative of the Director-General found that some of the charges were accompanied by other accusations linked to the activities of the CNT, which was dissolved by the Government in 1973 in a smaller number of cases the Committee noted that the persons concerned had been arrested for reasons which could be considered as being linked solely with their trade union activities, in its subsequent written communications the Government confined itself to quoting sections of the ordinary or military penal codes under which trade unionists had been prosecuted or sentenced, but did not supply details of the specific offences with which they had been charged in each case; nor had it communicated the texts of the judgements rendered in each case, as requested by the Governing Body. In the absence of more detailed information, the Committee noted that it had no facts at its disposal enabling it to ascertain whether the trade unionists were sentenced purely for reasons unconnected with their trade union office or activities.
7. 15. The Committee also regretted that the Government had not supplied detailed observations on the allegations relating to the ill-treatment allegedly suffered by certain prisoners and to the precariousness of the right to defence. As regards the latter point, the complainants had stated that, at first, civilian lawyers had been, able to carry out their functions and defend prisoners. This situation had deteriorated progressively and they had been confronted with obstacles in the exercise of their profession, especially as regards being able to communicate with their clients. Subsequently, stated the complainants, lawyers had been arrested and accused, for example, of complicity with the prisoners; others had been threatened and had left the country. Those who had been released could no longer exercise their professional activities. As for the detained workers, they were informed, often after lengthy imprisonment, that they must choose a lawyer in 48 hours. Having no contact with the outside, they were obliged to accept a lawyer appointed on their behalf so that the trial was not delayed further. Other allegations referred to ill-treatment allegedly suffered by imprisoned trade unionists (case of Mr. Iguini).
8. 16. At its February-March 1979 session the Governing Body, on the recommendation of the Committee, repeated its request to the Government for information on the specific acts for which trade unionists had been prosecuted or sentenced (including copies of the judgements) and or the allegations concerning ill-treatment of prisoners and obstruction of their right to defence. It urged the Government to supply the information requested on the trade unionists listed in the annex to the 191st Report of the Committee.

B. Recent communications received

1. 17. In its letter of 12 February 1979 the Trade Unions International of Workers in the Metal Industry refers to the case of Rosario Pietraroia, General Secretary of the National Union of workers in the metal and Allied Trades (UNTMRA), who was arrested in 1976 and sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment in October 1978. The complainant goes on to say that his health has deteriorated as a result of torture, and he has even lost an eye; the authorities want him to be operated on in prison, although there is no guarantee of success, since the premises are not properly equipped. The complainant organisation states that it has fears for the prisoner's life.
2. 18. In addition, WFTU alleges, in its letter of 2 March 1979, that Carlos Gómez, a former official of the Uruguayan Bank Employees' Association, has been imprisoned; the prisoner, who is now retired, was for several years a senior official in this trade union. WFTU also refers to the sentence of four years' imprisonment passed on Rubén Acasuso, former General Secretary of the Uruguayan Press Association. Finally, the complainant states that the whereabouts of Eduardo Arigón, a commerce worker who has been imprisoned since 13 June 1977, are unknown.
3. 19. In its letter of 6 April 1979, the Government supplies information on many of the trade unionists cited by the complainants; the situation of some of them remains unchanged with respect to the information previously supplied; details in this regard are given in the annexes to the present report. In particular, the Government mentions that about ten persons have been released, one conditionally. Rosario Pietraroia was arrested on 19 January 1976 and his trial by the military courts began on 9 August 1976; he was sentenced by the court of first instance to 12 years' imprisonment (minus preventive detention) and appealed against this decision to the Supreme Military Tribunal. According to the Government, there is no evidence of a deterioration in his health.
4. 20. In February 1979, the Committee noted that the Government had confined itself to quoting sections of the ordinary or military penal codes under which trade unionists had been prosecuted or sentenced, without supplying details of the specific offences with which they had been charged in each case. In this connection, the Government stresses that the trade unionists whose names are cited by the complainants were arrested, prosecuted or sentenced not because of their presumed trade union membership or activities but as citizens or residents of the country subject to its laws. In all cases, adds the Government, the action was taken solely on the grounds of the criminal behaviour of the accused and in no case by reason of their actual or presumed trade union activities. Furthermore, the status of trade unionist is not acquired by the mere fact of exercising an activity, occupation or trade, as is the case, according to the Government, of the persons concerned in most of the complaints presented; a trade union member or official is one who militates actively within a trade union or who holds office therein. A person who militates actively in the field of politics properly speaking, using his position as a trade unionist in order to further a given political ideology or even, in many cases, as a cover for subversive activity, can obviously not be considered as a trade unionist, even if he attempts to dissimulate his true activities by this means. The Government goes on to state that it has furnished the information requested as far as it is in its power to do so and that it has already explained why it has not given details of the specific offences or other information requested; these, states the Government, lie solely within the competence of the judicial administration, the accused and their counsel, and it is accordingly not for the Government to supply them. The Government stresses that the application of the law on the national territory is secured by the legally constituted judicial authorities, and it is for them to decide whether an activity is criminal or otherwise. The Government and the judicial authorities respect the law, and it is for the latter to pass judgement in conformity with the national legislation in force, including duly ratified Conventions.
5. 21. As regards the allegations concerning the precariousness of the right to defence and the ill-treatment alleged to have been inflicted on certain of the prisoners, the Government considers that it is for the complainants to prove these accusations and that the burden of proof cannot be laid on the Government, since the alleged facts are non-existent. If the complainants claim that there has been a failure to observe the law in specific circumstances, they must furnish detailed evidence in support of their allegations to enable the latter to be examined and refuted, as will undoubtedly be the case in all instances. Finally, the Government requests that complaints should be framed in a more serious spirit, with at least a minimum of detail, and that they should no longer contain lists of persons whose surnames and given names are incomplete or inaccurate, who are stated to have engaged in imaginary trade union activities or who, according to frivolous, malicious and entirely unfounded allegations, are said to have been denied guarantees for their defence, to have suffered ill-treatment, etc.
6. 22. In addition, the Government expresses its gratitude for the Committee's valuable comments on the draft Bill on occupational associations. It states its conviction that these comments will permit improvements in the concepts set forth in the text which is to be submitted to the Council of State. The Government states in its letter of 14 May 1979 that; following upon its consultations, it sent on 3 May 1979 a copy of this draft Bill to the most representative workers' and employers' organisations and invited them to make such comments and suggestions as they thought appropriate. Moreover, it adds, this document received the greatest publicity through the different media so as to make it known to public opinion in general.
7. 23. Finally, the Government supplies statistics on joint Committees in undertakings: 18 are operational, 7 are shortly to be set up and 33 are in process of formation. The sectors of activity covered are the following: the textile industry, electronics, private banking, social bodies, cement products, construction, the chemical, glass, sugar, tobacco and dairy products industries, engineering, metallurgy, horse-racing, the drinks industry and broadcasting.

C. Conclusions of the Committee

1. 24. The Committee notes the observations and information communicated by the Government. In this connection it must stress, firstly, the abnormal situation of the entire Uruguayan trade union movement since the change of regime in June 1973. As recalled in paragraphs 9 and 10 above, the trade unions are unable to carry out their specific activities, since their recognition by the authorities and by the employers depends upon a status governed by legislation which has not yet been promulgated. In these circumstances trade union activities in conformity with the international standards in this field may in practice be considered as illegal or not safeguarded by law, contrary to the international obligations assumed by Uruguay when it ratified the-freedom of association Conventions.
2. 25. The obstacles to the exercise of trade union rights resulting from this situation are set forth in paragraph 10 above. In addition, a number of joint Committees (18 of which are operational) have been set up in undertakings under a Decree of 15 February 1977. The Committee has noted this latest development but has stressed that such bodies may not serve as substitutes for trade union organisations. In this connection it feels obliged to recall that the National Constitution guarantees the right of association (section 39) as well as the right of workers to form trade unions and the right to strike (section 57), and that Uruguay has also ratified Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, which lay down basic rights in the field of freedom of association.
3. 26. In these circumstances, after six years of substantial restrictions on the principal trade union activities, it has now become extremely urgent to adopt an Act respecting occupational associations in conformity with international standards on freedom of association. Likewise, in the situation mentioned above, the question of the arrest and treatment of trade unionists is also of undoubted importance.
4. 27. In connection with the latter point, while noting the information supplied by the Government in its most recent communication regarding the release of ten persons, the Committee notes that even recently the complainant organisations were still drawing attention to the harsh sentences served on trade unionists, such as Rosario Pietraroia, General Secretary of the National Union of Workers in the Metal and Allied Trades (UNTMRA), or Rubén Acasuso, former General Secretary of the Uruguayan Press Association. The Governing Body requested the Government to communicate a copy of the judgements rendered in the case of the sentenced trade unionists to enable the Committee to satisfy itself that the persons concerned had not been punished for facts connected with their trade union functions or activities. The Government has not supplied any text of such decisions, but has repeated that these sentences were passed for reasons unrelated to trade union activities.
5. 28. In its most recent communication the Government states that it has not been established that certain of the persons mentioned by the complainants were trade unionists and that others merely used their trade union office as a cover for other activities. Nevertheless, the Government does not dispute the fact that other persons who have been prosecuted or sentenced were trade union officials, and the Committee considers that it would have been useful for it to have at its disposal more complete information on the reasons adduced for the prosecution of these persons or the sentences passed on them which have been mentioned by the Government, in particular for the purpose of deciding whether account was taken of their former trade union activities in the application of the sections of the penal legislation quoted by the Government.
6. 29. The Committee wishes to recall that in many earlier instances in which cases were pending before a court and the Committee considered that the judgements would provide it with information enabling it to reach conclusions with full knowledge of the facts, it has followed the practice of requesting the Government concerned to communicate the text of the decisions rendered, with the reasons adduced therefor. Governments have generally co operated by sending the texts of the judgements requested. During the last direct contacts mission to the country the Uruguayan Government itself supplied detailed information on the specific offences with which a number of the imprisoned trade unionists were charged, including the grounds for the accusation in a number of the judgements rendered. The public nature of judicial decisions is, moreover, a generally recognised principle (see, for example, section 4(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).
7. 30. The Committee also notes that the Government confines itself to rejecting the allegations regarding the obstruction of the right to defence. These allegations, which are referred to in paragraph 14 and which relate to a general situation, were formulated by the complainants in their oral statements to the Committee in May 1978.
8. 31. The Committee also notes that Manuel Piñeiro Pena, an official of UNTMRA, appears to have remained under arrest after serving his sentence, to judge from the most recent information furnished by the Government to the effect that his release is under consideration. In this respect the Committee wishes to point out, as it has done in an earlier case, that the detention of trade unionists, if it followed an acquittal by the competent courts, or after they had served their sentences, would constitute a violation of freedom of association.
9. 32. As regards the trade union situation in general, the Committee notes the latest information communicated by the Government regarding the draft Bill on occupational associations. The Government points out, in particular, that it is in the process of consultations over this draft Bill with the workers' and employers' organisations and that the text of the Bill will be submitted to the Council of State. In February 1979 the Committee considered that it was urgent for trade unions to be allowed to carry on their activities without hindrance, in law as well as in fact, since this was a necessary precondition for the establishment of a harmonious system of industrial relations; the adoption of an Act on occupational associations should be a decisive step in this direction. It had examined in detail the provisions of the draft Bill, which, it emphasised, had certain positive features, such as the right to form occupational associations without previous authorisation and to set up second- and third-degree organisations. Nevertheless, the Committee added, a number of other provisions did not appear to be fully compatible with certain principles of freedom of association, and it made observations with a view to the re-examination of these provisions in order to ensure that the legislation which was to be adopted was in conformity with these principles and with the Conventions on freedom of association ratified by Uruguay.
10. 33. These observations related firstly to the conditions to be fulfilled by trade union officials, in particular the obligation to make a declaration of "democratic faith" and to have belonged to the branch of activity represented by the union for at least two years. The Committee was also of the opinion that workers should be able to decide whether they preferred to establish, at the primary level, a works union or another form of basic organisation, such as an industrial or craft union. The Committee also expressed its views on the provisions under which the aims of organisations must be exclusively occupational and have no reference to politics and that organisations and their members must respect the law of the land. In this respect, the Committee pointed out, the national provisions on the settlement of collective labour disputes and strikes, on the right of assembly or freedom of expression for organised workers, must be in conformity with the principles of freedom of association.
11. 34. The Committee noted that several sections of the draft Bill regulated in considerable detail various aspects of the internal administration of trade unions, and in this connection recalled that even if some of these provisions might be designed to secure more efficient operation of trade union organisations, the idea underlying Article 3 (and Article 6) of Convention No. 87 is that workers and employers should be allowed to decide for themselves what rules should be observed for the administration of their organisations and elections held therein. The Committee added that, if the draft were to be adopted in its present form, magistrates would be under the obligation, in the event of refusal or withdrawal of registration, to apply provisions which are not fully compatible with the provisions of Convention No. 87.

Z. Annex I

• Latest information communicated by the Government on the trade unionists mentioned by the complainants
  1. 1 Released
• Acosta Pegorrado, Miguel Angel
• Alonso Díaz, Juan José
• Batalla Dufrechou, Luis Leonardo (sentence served)
• Britos Criado, Fredichi Constancio
• Curuchet Calero, Juan Carlos
• Duarte Ferreiro, Carlos Guido
• García Miguez de Valverde, Martha
• Rey Ramirez, Aurora Martina
• Tassino Asteasu, Javier Dario (sentence served)
  2. 2 Conditionally released
• Altamiranda Argain, Héctor Mario (sentence served)
  3. 3 Persons whose release is under consideration
• Piñeiro Pena, Manuel (sentence served)
• Suárez Turcati, Alicia Dinorah (conditional release under consideration by the court of justice)
  4. 4 Judgement pending
• Saldombide Dominguez, Héctor Mario (the Government had previously indicated that the person concerned had been conditionally released)
  5. 5 Sentenced
• Acasuso Latorre, Rubén (4 years' imprisonment)
• Botti Baéz, Ricardo (5 years' imprisonment)
• Chagas Dutra, Washington (6 years' imprisonment)
• Gómez, Juan Felipe (6 years' and 6 months' imprisonment)
• Ibarburu Podestá, Ricardo (5 years' and 6 months' imprisonment)
• Louis Elazaurdia, Julio Alcides (20 years' imprisonment)
• Michelini Delle Piane, Margarita Maria (7 years' imprisonment)
• Platero Roballo, Eduardo (4 years' imprisonment)
• Rodríguez Larreta Martínez, Enrique (9 years' imprisonment)
• Sosa Zerpa, Gustavo Gabriel (5 years' and 6 months' imprisonment)
• Varela Castro, Juan José (5 years' imprisonment)
• Viñas Cotrofe, Luis Enrique (3 years' and 3 months' imprisonment)
• Zapico Burcio, Ricardo (4 years' imprisonment; appeal filed)
  6. 6 Persons whose sentences are the subject of appeals before the Supreme Military Tribunal
• Acosta Pereira, Mario
• Barbacosta Etcheverria, Néstor Hugo
• Carissini Pino, Miguel Angel
• Carranza Vigano, Jorge Eduardo
• Carrio Elcarte, Pablo Emilio
• Fernández Rodriguez, Alberto Leonardo
• García Passegui, Silvia
• Gómez Duarte, Juan Bautista
• Pereira Viera, Maria del Carmen
• Pietraroia Zapala, Rosario
• Planells Milans, Edison
• Ruiz Lavin, Oscar Dulcineo
• Sánchez Soca, Juan Carlos
• Scarpa Brusco, Luis Angel
• Zarauza Suárez, Enrique
  7. 7 Deceased
• Toledo Brum, Manuel
  8. 8 Persons in respect of whom the Government states that it has no information
• Arigón, Eduardo
• Gómez, Carlos
• Tassino Atzu, Oscar (according to the complainants, who base their allegation on statements by relations of the person concerned, he is said to have been arrested on 19 July 1978 at a certain address in Montevideo and to have since disappeared).
• Annex II
• Names of the persons whose situation, according to the Government, has remained unchanged since the previous examination of the case by the Committee
• CARRASCO DE ARMAS, Juan Rosa (conditionally released)
• FERNANDEZ LOPEZ, Niurka "
• PASSARINI SUAREZ, Pedro Abel "
• SPINETTI ITURRALDE, Julio César "
• DEUS MARTINEZ, Miriam Rita (prosecuted by the military courts)
• DRESCHER CALDAS, Adolfo "
• TRELLES MERINO, Gualberto "
• ALTUNA FERNANDEZ, Elsa Zulma (sentenced)
• MARRERO FUENTES, Hernando José "
• ACOSTA AROTXARENA, Néstor Raúl (conditionally released)
• DIAZ, Mario Oscar "
• DIAZ CAIRELLO, Heber Máximo "
• FIGUEREDO MANDADO, Carlos Milton "
• LIGNELLI SORRENTINO, Graciela Beatriz "
• MARTINEZ IGLESIAS, Maria Cristina "
• PERDOMO GARAT, Morgan "
• SILVA SANCHEZ, Telmo "
• VEGA VEREZ, Carlos Dario "
• ABERO COSTA, Roque (prosecuted by the military courts)
• BALBIANI SAAVEDRA, Harrys "
• BARRIOS VILLAVERDE, Gerardo "
• BETBEDER EGANA, Fulvia Susana "
• BORGES AEMORAD, Edgar Thelman "
• BOUZAS MARCHESE, Miguel "
• CABALLERO FIERRO, Carlos Dante "
• CARBALLO DA COSTA, Felipe "
• CUNEO BETOSSINI, José Angel "
• ESPONDA APECECHEA, Dardo Antonio "
• GARCIA ALVAREZ, Manuel Santiago "
• GARCIA SOUZA, Luis Doroteo "
• GONZALEZ PEREZ, Guillermo "
• MENDEZ GATTAN, Mauricio Roque "
• MUELA MUELA, Maria Pura Concepción "
• NOGUEIRA LOPEZ, Mario César "
• PIFFARETTI LANDINELLI, Ricardo Oscar "
• SENA ALAMO, Ismael "
• VILARO NIETO, Gustavo Leopoldo "
• VILLAMIL DE BOUZAS, Maria Otilia "
• ARISTONDO PEREIRA, Carlos Maria (sentenced; under appeal)
• BERRN CROKI, Isidro "
• BERRO BERRO, Fernando Luis (sentenced)
• BIDARTE CHAPARRO, Manuel Enrique (sentenced; under appeal)
• BOTTARO GIORDANO, José Ruben (sentenced)
• BRASELLI DOMINGUEZ, Maria Selva (sentenced; under appeal)
• DIAZ BAUBET, Juan Alberto "
• GURIDI RODRIGUEZ, Sigifredo (sentenced)
• HUERTAS MELGAR, Jorge Julián "
• POSSAMAY CLARO, José Santiago "
• RODRIGUEZ ALDABALDE, Hugo "
• RODRIGUEZ LEDESMA, Juan Carlos (sentenced; under appeal)
• PUCHET CASTELLANO, Santiago (prosecuted by the military courts)
• VIERA ALVEZ DE CURUCHET, Miriam "